Mystery. This is a good idea.Mystery, why not apologize (try it you might like it), and delete the faked "quote." It's wrong. Make it right.
Prove me wrong
- Thread starter Mystery
- Start date
- Status
Mystery
New member
Yea right, go back and read TH's "500+ posts" and see who started with the false accusations.
TH gets nothing from me, and neither do you.
Mystery
New member
You've proven nothing.
Five points for your consideration:
1. I never manufactured a lie and put it in your mouth. Whatever you received from me was the direct result of your argument or position. I did branch into style and characteristics, but even those were weighed against your conduct, like my observation that your use of religion paralleled a sociopathic pattern.
2. Most of my posts, however I differed with you, were intentionally slanted toward humor and invited the same response. The lion's share of those attacked your argument or the unreasoning root of your argument. I at one point even suggested a better line of insult for you to pursue. I chose to ignore the implication of your comment about my niece and receive it in a humorous vein, which in light of your subsequent postings now seems a mistake.
Did I mean to offend you? Absolutely. I meant to give you a more reasoned taste of your own medicine, to show you how it felt to be bullied, minus the hostility and epithets. I meant to give you the back of my hand in the hope that you would grow tired of your misbehavior, realizing that if you did not there would be a penalty more substantive than whatever satisfaction you might derive from slandering those who disagreed with you by questioning their salvation.
3. A few of my early posts were specifically aimed at attempting to reform your tendency toward self immolation by way of praising you when you were rational and constructive. On more than one occasion I extended congratulations and positive reputation for that very thing and you know this to be true.
4. However reprehensible I found your style or comments I never accused you of being other than a member of the body. I never questioned your commitment to God, only your methodology and conclusions regarding others.
5. While I will not seek you out if you don't want to hear from me leave me out of your posts and/or stay out of threads where I'm active, because while I won't go looking for you I'm not in the least intimidated by you. And if you again attempt to post under my name the sort of filth you attributed to me I will consider relief beyond an appeal to the administrators of TOL for your abjurement.
1. I never manufactured a lie and put it in your mouth. Whatever you received from me was the direct result of your argument or position. I did branch into style and characteristics, but even those were weighed against your conduct, like my observation that your use of religion paralleled a sociopathic pattern.
2. Most of my posts, however I differed with you, were intentionally slanted toward humor and invited the same response. The lion's share of those attacked your argument or the unreasoning root of your argument. I at one point even suggested a better line of insult for you to pursue. I chose to ignore the implication of your comment about my niece and receive it in a humorous vein, which in light of your subsequent postings now seems a mistake.
Did I mean to offend you? Absolutely. I meant to give you a more reasoned taste of your own medicine, to show you how it felt to be bullied, minus the hostility and epithets. I meant to give you the back of my hand in the hope that you would grow tired of your misbehavior, realizing that if you did not there would be a penalty more substantive than whatever satisfaction you might derive from slandering those who disagreed with you by questioning their salvation.
3. A few of my early posts were specifically aimed at attempting to reform your tendency toward self immolation by way of praising you when you were rational and constructive. On more than one occasion I extended congratulations and positive reputation for that very thing and you know this to be true.
4. However reprehensible I found your style or comments I never accused you of being other than a member of the body. I never questioned your commitment to God, only your methodology and conclusions regarding others.
5. While I will not seek you out if you don't want to hear from me leave me out of your posts and/or stay out of threads where I'm active, because while I won't go looking for you I'm not in the least intimidated by you. And if you again attempt to post under my name the sort of filth you attributed to me I will consider relief beyond an appeal to the administrators of TOL for your abjurement.
Mystery
New member
Mystery
New member
If you have a problem with my "use of religion", then dispute the points, and stop behaving like a slack-jawed hillbilly.
That works both ways, Sambo.
:baby:
Mystery
New member
I removed the post.
That's a good start..
Mystery
New member
If he makes a step in the right direction, so will I.
Uh, you already made a step in the right direction...
Removing the post was the honorable thing and probably as far as one can expect a Yankee to go...but it does change the equation for me. I don't think it's a singularly Southern perspective, but in my family there are simply things you don't do. Among them would be the offense that started this latest dust up. It's like forging a check and getting someone else's credit in a bind.
:sigh: There are no hills in southern Alabama worthy of those bread making, shoeless wonders. And my weapon of choice has always been satire, though I think you'd find that I in fact do attack or defend on the argument presented up until I get the impression that I've wasted my time. If it gets to the point where I'm just making fun of a post it probably means the poster had his or her own stick ready.
So if you say the sky is red and I respond with no, it's blue and then you call me an idiot and restate your position to me you're now fair game as a satire piñata. I can mock your color blindness or suggest your head wound has colored your perspective. That isn't going to change because the alternative is what? To me, that's part of what I like about TOL. And it doesn't seem particularly thin skinned to me to simply insist that whatever you mock should actually find its origin in my writing or personal conduct, which is all this has been about for me.
And to my Calvinist brothers and sisters who don't know me yet, the bit about Nang was a joke and in no meaningful way intended as a slight. I'm just not taking any chances at this point... AMR has probably received a dozen variations on that theme, which he always replies to good naturedly.
But that's to be expected...See, can't be helped.
Oh, and I'll remove the honor violation rhetoric and alter the 'objection' post appropriately...I'm not saying that matters to you, but it does to me. I appreciate the gesture and it should be recognized by response.
:sigh: There are no hills in southern Alabama worthy of those bread making, shoeless wonders. And my weapon of choice has always been satire, though I think you'd find that I in fact do attack or defend on the argument presented up until I get the impression that I've wasted my time. If it gets to the point where I'm just making fun of a post it probably means the poster had his or her own stick ready.
So if you say the sky is red and I respond with no, it's blue and then you call me an idiot and restate your position to me you're now fair game as a satire piñata. I can mock your color blindness or suggest your head wound has colored your perspective. That isn't going to change because the alternative is what? To me, that's part of what I like about TOL. And it doesn't seem particularly thin skinned to me to simply insist that whatever you mock should actually find its origin in my writing or personal conduct, which is all this has been about for me.
And to my Calvinist brothers and sisters who don't know me yet, the bit about Nang was a joke and in no meaningful way intended as a slight. I'm just not taking any chances at this point... AMR has probably received a dozen variations on that theme, which he always replies to good naturedly.
But that's to be expected...See, can't be helped.
Oh, and I'll remove the honor violation rhetoric and alter the 'objection' post appropriately...I'm not saying that matters to you, but it does to me. I appreciate the gesture and it should be recognized by response.
Mystery
New member
And we both know that did not happen, so how about you stop playing the game of the poor little victim.
Leave it to you to find the dark lining in a silver cloud...
Well, no man is a villain in his own story. As a point of curiosity, where do you think this started? I don't believe we've had that many posts in common...I'll look back and see, but normally I get involved in one or two ways: I make a statement and someone responds and off we go, or I read a statement that to my mind is either lacking as a matter of fact or appears to be an unwarranted attack on another and weigh in. And anything after 'the list' made you an overweight duck on the first day of the season. Because, really, if you're going to be offended by remarks not aimed at argument you might not want to post something that makes no particular argument, responds to no particular argument, and compares the subjects of your post to idiotic monkeys.
As for the 'victim/pity' part of your remark, that merely underscores that you don't know me. A 'victim' wouldn't shrug off most insult and grin at you, let alone attempt to make improvements to your game. Maybe it is a cultural perspective after all. The Japanese thought honorable surrender was a form of cowardice, so you never know.
Mystery
New member
Before you attacked me on the "mental illness" issue, I don't have any recollection of attacking you personally.
I'll look back after the games are over, but if you're fair about this I do remember stopping at some point and literally saying that I did not, in fact, mean to imply you were actually sociopathic, but that your methodology could be seen as running parallel. So the criticism was still with the way you were doing things. I meant it to contain both humor and shock value, not to needlessly offend you (the operative word being needlessly).
I went ahead and looked back, given that the Colts game is a late game. Here's what I found:
Our most recent clash began with my two part response to your attack on the mental health profession. During my response, which centered on your argument, I added “You do a great disservice to many in the medical community who are just as Christian as you.” Note that even while criticizing you I kept your commitment to Christ removed from consideration.
In your response you called me “a bona-fide dumbass.” Not exactly a critique of reason, is it?
I left it alone for the moment and went elsewhere, but after reading your continuing attacks on those who disagreed with your perspective I raised the sociopathic connection in The Body is Sick because it seemed like a good vehicle for satirizing your manner of debate.
So no, I don’t believe that I started the personal element in the row between us.
And prior to that I had observed you being needlessly rude and taken exception with you over it, as when you told Ktoyou to think before she spoke. Maybe it’s fine where you live to treat your elders dismissively and disrespectfully, but a number of people took exception to it. I was among them.
Before that I had witnessed you call red77 a ‘godless, Christ hating, moronic, pervert’ and taken exception to your choice of words. Your response was to declare that I must either agree with you or be a moron. And I haven’t even touched on the slinging remarks and their like…
So while I don't dispute that you saw the personal element of this beginning more recently, I would counter that you had that particular method in play long before I arrived at TOL and if you're going to run about swinging a sword, you shouldn't complain when you find yourself cut. And I think you demonstrably interjected the first truly personal insult to pass between us.
Mystery
New member
Your glaring accusations and misrepresentations of what I said in the OP of that thread were beyond any attempt at reason, on your part. I called you a dumbass, because that was exactly how you approached the subject. If your reading comprehension skills are that inept, then nothing I said about your character is inaccurate.
I love it when you make my point for me. Even if one accepted that I completely misread you, you're still the first to reduce that disagreement to insult. And if you are want to point fingers in terms of intellect you might want to be more accurate in your spelling. It tends to indicate a level of laziness or carelessness that can undermine your argument by bringing into question your attention to detail.
As for the post in question, I was asking questions of you at that point and not so much making accusations, glaring or otherwise. Was my tone suggestive of disbelief? Yep. Were my questions steeped in sarcasm? A fair assertion. But a question is almost never a misrepresentation and hardly demonstrative of an absence of reason.
And if I actually had difficulty with comprehending it might go to the quality of my argument or properly fuel speculation about the level of my intelligence, but it wouldn't touch upon the issue of character...
Or do you consider the illiterate to be morally suspect?
Ah well, in the end one man's honest disagreement is another's 'turd slinging' I suppose.
- Status